AJAY VED PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of LA. 9293/2001 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC, and Sections 247,266,268 and 295 of the Indian Succession Act; and LA. 2202/2002 filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC and Sections 268 and 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter "the Act").

(2.) Facts in brief are : that petitioner filed this petition under Section 276 of the Act for grant of Probate (Letters of Administration) in respect of the Will dated 12th August, 1999, executed by his mother Smt. Sneh Ved Prakash (hereafter, "the deceased"). It is pleaded that through this last legal and valid Will of the deceased property No. S-370, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017 (hereinafter "the suit property"), devolved upon the petitioner and his brother Shri Ajit Ved Prakash in equal shares. That his brother Ajit Ved Prakash died on 27.10.2000 and his share in the suit property, thereafter devolved upon his son and daughter (respondents 2 and 3 herein). The respondents 4 to 6 are married daughters of the deceased, who have no right or share in the suit property, and they are settled in their respective matrimonial homes. The Will is stated to have been accepted by the parties and stood implemented. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 3 (son), is settled in Australia, for the last about five years and respondent No. 2-daughter was married in 1999. They have not been in occupation of the suit property and the petitioner alone is in exclusive possession of the same for the last over ten years; that respondents 2 and 3 are not in possession of the suit property but are bent upon forcibly dispossessing the petitioner and gaining possession of the same. The respondents 2 and 3 are claiming their right on the basis of earlier Will elated 21.2.1991 alleged to have been executed by the deceased, despite knowing that she executed her last legal and valid Will on 12th August, 1999. Lastly it is pleaded that respondents 2 and 3 have never been in possession of the suit property consisting of basement, ground floor and Barsati, which are in exclusive possession of the petitioner. On these averments petitioner was granted ex-partead ad in-interim relief on 3.10.2001, restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from dispossessing the petitioner without due process of law. It was ordered:

(3.) Now, respondents2 and 3 have filed the application (LA. 2202/2002), under Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC, seeking revocation of the cx-partc interim injunction. It is, inter alia, pleaded that the Will set up by the petitioner is a fabricated and forged document; the ex-parte interim injunction was obtained by concealment of material facts; that two bedrooms on the ground floor were in occupation of respondents and 3; that their father had expired on 27.10.2000 and they were living with then father throughout. Some documents have also been filed, indicating that they wen also in possession of the suit premises.